Tearing down statues

I'm not gonna start googling to fill a thread full of nonsense, but it makes sense to have a museum dedicated to him in his most famous theatre of war. A dedicated werhrmakt career office and not a paid up Nazi.
I'm sure 1000s will disagree for reasons.
 
google's sometimes not evil, in the right hands.

Comparisons last year between the war and covid lock-downs ?
maybe more war related statues are required, in addition to national memorials, rememberance day attention - Churchills non-significant role, maybe genx will eulogize Boris at same level as Churchill otherwise.
 
inogen said:
There's a lot of military respect for Kesselring and Rommel. Are statues okay for them?
Click to expand...

General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson once said, “If God be with us, who can be against us?”
Kesselring and Rommel May have had belt buckles that said, “Gott mit uns”, (God with us),
but I doubt that they felt as confident about what side God was on as Jackson did.
 
azazl187 said:
Status are just ok. No one can please everyone all of the time but if you don't agree with a statue just disagree and move on with your life.

Why does everything have to be so complicated these days. Everyone has an opinion that HAS to be listened too otherwise they feel oppressed or something.

This really isn't that much of an issue.
Click to expand...
It is of a slave trader. Its not a frigging statue of a horse.

Everyone has an opinion that HAS to be listened too otherwise they feel oppressed or something.
Click to expand...
Isnt that what this whole thread is about? People feeling oppressed because they arent being listened to about their love of slave traders?
 
Not only stupid, but stupid and illiterate. Also, it's a bit strange how he went straight for Ariel's knob.

TzWvXve.jpg
 
MadMossy said:
Dude in London attempting to destroy a statue on the BBC building as it was made by prolific sexual abuser Eric Gill, this one is being called criminal damage, police are currently standing around watching though.
Click to expand...


And all they had to do was take the ladders away... And preferably left him there for a few days...
 
I'm surprised it took that long to be honest. All that Bristol criminal case did was tell a certain section of the UK "you can attack any statue you have an issue with and you'll get away with it" so this sort of thing will probably become far more prolific as there's all kinds of statues/monuments/artwork all over the UK which was made/funded/depicts people who are now considered "bad" whether they actually are/were or not.

Eventually it'll be some idiots smashing things like the Cenotaph or the Bomber Command memorial etc because they know they can get away with it, but those same people will be the first up in arms when something they approve of gets destroyed by idiots on the other side.
 
ianh said:
I'm surprised it took that long to be honest. All that Bristol criminal case did was tell a certain section of the UK "you can attack any statue you have an issue with and you'll get away with it" so this sort of thing will probably become far more prolific as there's all kinds of statues/monuments/artwork all over the UK which was made/funded/depicts people who are now considered "bad" whether they actually are/were or not.

Eventually it'll be some idiots smashing things like the Cenotaph or the Bomber Command memorial etc because they know they can get away with it, but those same people will be the first up in arms when something they approve of gets destroyed by idiots on the other side.
Click to expand...

Anyone attacking a cenotaph will likely face jail time- I can't see any jury seeing that as acceptable. If someone tried that in my village they'd be glad when the cops came to scrape them up off the pavement...
 
MadMossy said:
Dude in London attempting to destroy a statue on the BBC building as it was made by prolific sexual abuser Eric Gill, this one is being called criminal damage, police are currently standing around watching though.
Click to expand...

Will be interesting to see if he can try the same defence strategies, granted we don't know for sure which argument(s) the jury in the Bristol case went with, presumably the Judge will have to allow the relevant jury instructions though?

He does seem to have an argument re: political protest, the sculptor being a nonce etc.. that the statue was offensive etc... his lawyers can make a similar argument re: is it proportional to punish him etc..

Also to be fair I'm not surprised some people want it taken down given the BBC's role in covering for paedophiles in recent years too.
 
ianh said:
Eventually it'll be some idiots smashing things like the Cenotaph or the Bomber Command memorial etc because they know they can get away with it, but those same people will be the first up in arms when something they approve of gets destroyed by idiots on the other side.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif


Until we get a jury who sees sense and says criminal damage is criminal damage regardless of how offended a person may or may not be by the inanimate objects they decide to destroy
 
Minusorange said:
Until we get a jury who sees sense and says criminal damage is criminal damage regardless of how offended a person may or may not be by the inanimate objects they decide to destroy
Click to expand...

Exactamundo.

One only has to ask "If I didn't know what the object being destoyed was, or who was doing the damage, is it still criminal damage?"
 
Zatoichi.uK said:
Exactamundo.

One only has to ask "If I didn't know what the object being destroyed was, or who was doing the damage, is it still criminal damage?"
Click to expand...

I don’t know if that’s a rhetorical question, or the fact that I had a good few belts of Kentucky bourbon last night and have only had one cup of black coffee so far this morning is severely restricting my understanding, but if you mean that if someone was ambling down a street and came across a bunch of people daubing paint on something and out of casual interest picked up a paintbrush and joined in the fun, then it turned out to be someone’s property that was being daubed, I’d say that they were all committing criminal damage.
Any jury that returned a verdict of ‘not guilty’ in this case should be barred from any jury service in the future, and/or transported to the colonies for an indeterminate period, accompanied by the judge and jury in the Colston statue case.
This is a black and white issue to me, I don’t care if it’s a statue of Kim Jong-Un or Mother Teresa, even if I detested Kim Jong-Un, anyone who wantonly causes damage to statues of anyone or anything, or buildings is guilty of criminal damage.
 
Jean-F said:
I don’t know if that’s a rhetorical question, or the fact that I had a good few belts of Kentucky bourbon last night and have only had one cup of black coffee so far this morning is severely restricting my understanding, but if you mean that if someone was ambling down a street and came across a bunch of people daubing paint on something and out of casual interest picked up a paintbrush and joined in the fun, then it turned out to be someone’s property that was being daubed, I’d say that they were all committing criminal damage.
Any jury that returned a verdict of ‘not guilty’ in this case should be barred from any jury service in the future, and/or transported to the colonies for an indeterminate period, accompanied by the judge and jury in the Colston statue case.
This is a black and white issue to me, I don’t care if it’s a statue of Kim Jong-Un or Mother Teresa, even if I detested Kim Jong-Un, anyone who wantonly causes damage to statues of anyone or anything, or buildings is guilty of criminal damage.
Click to expand...
It's kind of rhetorical as I don't think it could be applied to an actual case. If for example a jury was shown footage of a statue being destroyed but it wasn't at all clear what the statue was of, nor was it clear who the people damaging it were, only the fact that it was being damaged, would the jury have arrived at the same conclusion?

This case is so politically charged because of who the statue was of and the hysteria surrounding BLM at the time. It certainly appears that the jury did not do their job in this instance and were tainted by being "On the right side of history" rather than being presented the facts.
 
Jean-F said:
I don’t know if that’s a rhetorical question, or the fact that I had a good few belts of Kentucky bourbon last night and have only had one cup of black coffee so far this morning is severely restricting my understanding, but if you mean that if someone was ambling down a street and came across a bunch of people daubing paint on something and out of casual interest picked up a paintbrush and joined in the fun, then it turned out to be someone’s property that was being daubed, I’d say that they were all committing criminal damage.
Any jury that returned a verdict of ‘not guilty’ in this case should be barred from any jury service in the future, and/or transported to the colonies for an indeterminate period, accompanied by the judge and jury in the Colston statue case.
This is a black and white issue to me, I don’t care if it’s a statue of Kim Jong-Un or Mother Teresa, even if I detested Kim Jong-Un, anyone who wantonly causes damage to statues of anyone or anything, or buildings is guilty of criminal damage.
Click to expand...

Mother Theresa is taking a lot of criticism now, so there may be people who claim it is legitimate to deface monuments to her.

Pretty much sums up how opinion changes...

:rolleyes:
 
Now King Willem Alexander of The Netherlands says that the Royal golden carriage will not be used as long as the Netherlands colonial history remains controversial.
Apparently there is an illustration on the coach which depicts a white woman with half naked black people at her feet, offering her gifts.
Let’s hope that the Dutch are law abiding enough not to push the coach into the Zuider Zee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom